Vkcki Mckenna LIED.

And the reason that I bring this up, is becasue it directly relates to a legal practice that us Open Carriers employ.

On Feb. 23, in the first hour of her program, a man named Steve called in with a few questions. The first question had to do with teachers sick notes. The second dealt with the legality of recording conversations.

Steve asked. "Isn't against the law to record someone without letting them know first"?

Vicki responded, "Yes, it is illegal. Yes".

First, I adore Vicki, but she lied. And if I cannot trust that what she broadcasts as THE TRUTH, then I refuse to listen to her anymore.

Anyone that is has a line of communucation with her call her out on this?

Being Erroneous is Not Lying

I don't know about this specific case but making a false statement is not necessarily lying. At a minimum the speaker must know or believe the statement to be false. Beyond that, the term "lying" is generally reserved for actions that contain a moral component - trying to hurt someone or benefit yourself. Everybody has a viewpoint on the subject and to debate the issue doesn't seem productive. I would just be more cautious before slapping such a label on a person.

If simply stating something as true when it is false (or vice versa) is defined as lying then every student who took an exam and received less than 100% would be a liar. That would be silly.

Of course, we are assuming that the recording took place in Wisconsin (did it?) Depending upon the location, it could be illegal (e.g. Illinois, I think is an all party consent state). It certainly is tacky. Is there a state law about making false statements to a government official?

it directly relates to a legal practice that us Open Carriers employ Do you simply mean recording telephone conversations?

She has a facebook page. Can't you just message her or ask one of the regulars who contact people to do so?

2 attorneys told my mom it's illegal to record face to face conversations if both parties don't know either in WI. My mom was informed by showing her the law

BROKENSPROKET said:

And the reason that I bring this up, is becasue it directly relates to a legal practice that us Open Carriers employ.

On Feb. 23, in the first hour of her program, a man named Steve called in with a few questions. The first question had to do with teachers sick notes. The second dealt with the legality of recording conversations.

Steve asked. "Isn't against the law to record someone without letting them know first"?

Vicki responded, "Yes, it is illegal. Yes".

First, I adore Vicki, but she lied. And if I cannot trust that what she broadcasts as THE TRUTH, then I refuse to listen to her anymore.

Anyone that is has a line of communucation with her call her out on this?

Click to expand...

I've heard from my attorney that it's illegal to record someone over the phone without their knowledge but not in person. Of course, my attorney is worth his weight in gravel, so he might have bullshitted me.

anmut said:

I've heard from my attorney that it's illegal to record someone over the phone without their knowledge but not in person. Of course, my attorney is worth his weight in gravel, so he might have bullshitted me.

Click to expand...

My atty. said as long as one person gives consent to the recording (me, the recorder) that it's legal, phone or in person.

WI is a 1-party consent state

But, I do no tknow about where the call originated from, I do beleive NY has 2-party consent to be legal, can anyone verify this?

"A teaching moment"

BROKENSPROKET said:

And the reason that I bring this up, is becasue it directly relates to a legal practice that us Open Carriers employ.....

Vicki responded, "Yes, it is illegal. Yes".

First, I adore Vicki, but she lied. And if I cannot trust that what she broadcasts as THE TRUTH, then I refuse to listen to her anymore.

Anyone that is has a line of communucation with her call her out on this?

Click to expand...

May I suggest that this is what is called, "a teaching moment". If you really think so much of her, then take the time to find the relevant statute, to find her contact information, and to send her a calm, reasonable explanation of why she is mistaken. Everybody makes mistakes and maybe this is one of hers.

Nutczak said:

But, I do no tknow about where the call originated from, I do beleive NY has 2-party consent to be legal, can anyone verify this?

Click to expand...

I was rather surprised that WISN during their newscast last night said they couldn't legally play portions of the call.

She didn't lie, just had it wrong. There is a difference.

Whoa Mama!

paul@paul-fisher.com said:

I was rather surprised that WISN during their newscast last night said they couldn't legally play portions of the call.

Click to expand...

This is a different issue. Did she say it was illegal for the recording to occur or that it was illegal for her to play the recording?

apjonas said:

This is a different issue. Did she say it was illegal for the recording to occur or that it was illegal for her to play the recording?

Click to expand...

I said WISN News, not Vicki. Their 10 o'clock news said this.

Here's the citation:

968.31 Interception and disclosure of wire, electronic or oral
communications prohibited.
(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in ss. 196.63 or 968.28 to
968.30, whoever commits any of the acts enumerated in this section is
guilty of a Class H felony:
(a) Intentionally intercepts, attempts to intercept or procures
any other person to intercept or attempt to intercept, any wire,
electronic or oral communication.
(b) Intentionally uses, attempts to use or procures any other person to
use or attempt to use any electronic, mechanical or other device to
intercept any oral communication.
[ ... ]
(2) It is not unlawful under ss. 968.28 to 968.37:
[ ... ]
(c) For a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire,
electronic or oral communication where the person is a party to the
communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given
prior consent to the interception unless the communication is
intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act
in violation of the constitution or laws of the United States or of any
state or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act.

Click to expand...

Emphasis added.

Poor Steve is that guy ever going to know now that he's heard it incorrectly. Makes you wonder.

A helpful citation....

paul@paul-fisher.com said:

Here's the citation:....

Click to expand...

Thanks, neighbor!